ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can certainly see two sides to this argument, I can also wholeheartedly say I was a little offended by the title...
Regardless of whether now was or was not the right time to implement ADSB required airspace, a date has/had to be fixed...it would've been preferable for all concerned to have been a date when all aircraft can reasonably have been expected to be heable to receive the equipment, through serv bulletins or whatever, but also a date taste encouraged the manufacturers I te aircraft to actually get it done n not drag their heels forever...
ADSB for GA is very useful on an ATC side of things, probably a bit cost prohibitive for general GA but that's not my argument...for example in the airspace I control on the J Curve we have lots of military airspace & C steps and there are several GA aircraft regularly seen flying around with ADB squirting out..this helps very one out as if we see that aircraft tracking towards or into mil airspace, restricted airspace, CTA we can direct out call specifically, rather than just make a general broadcast for a VFR based on a point/geographic position/Navajos that the pilot not know or be aware of and thus ignore the call thinking it's not him
I'm not saying GA should be forced to get ADSB squitters, before people jump all over me, just that it is a valuable safety device
And dick, don't blame the controllers we have to follow the rules or we lose our controlling privileges and potentially our jobs...blame the ones who made this decision and took the ATCs flexibility away
Regardless of whether now was or was not the right time to implement ADSB required airspace, a date has/had to be fixed...it would've been preferable for all concerned to have been a date when all aircraft can reasonably have been expected to be heable to receive the equipment, through serv bulletins or whatever, but also a date taste encouraged the manufacturers I te aircraft to actually get it done n not drag their heels forever...
ADSB for GA is very useful on an ATC side of things, probably a bit cost prohibitive for general GA but that's not my argument...for example in the airspace I control on the J Curve we have lots of military airspace & C steps and there are several GA aircraft regularly seen flying around with ADB squirting out..this helps very one out as if we see that aircraft tracking towards or into mil airspace, restricted airspace, CTA we can direct out call specifically, rather than just make a general broadcast for a VFR based on a point/geographic position/Navajos that the pilot not know or be aware of and thus ignore the call thinking it's not him
I'm not saying GA should be forced to get ADSB squitters, before people jump all over me, just that it is a valuable safety device
And dick, don't blame the controllers we have to follow the rules or we lose our controlling privileges and potentially our jobs...blame the ones who made this decision and took the ATCs flexibility away
When you have an ‘big airline’ aircraft with an ADSB system that’s been unserviceable for less than 3 days, or a regional airline turboprop or a military aircraft without an ADSB system, how do you manage?
What’s the practical impediment to managing the teesny weensy number of other non-ADSB equipped aircraft in the same way, until 2017?
What’s the practical impediment to managing the teesny weensy number of other non-ADSB equipped aircraft in the same way, until 2017?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite the conversation. First off, I will caveat by saying I am not a proponent of ADSB, but not for most of the reasoning I see in this thread.
A system is needed to provide location and indentification of aircraft in the airspace. Mostly for ATC, but also for self separation and avoidance.
We have to face it, the airspace, like any other highway, is getting crowded and congested.
Unfortunately, the means and methods of tracking in that airspace, are stressed to the limits, and development around airports has significantly reduced RADAR capability.
Incoming ADSB. Currently, in my opinion, being touted as an intermediate /future step in airspace management, but actually, it is a technologically ancient system. ADSB uses the 800 Mhz system, recently moving ground ops to 1090 Mhz taking some of the load off. (you can see all of the 'commitees' working on the broadcast message)
The ADSB system has the capability, due to bandwidth, to manage 4000 'messages' per second. The message is each signal broadcast, but important, a signal is a single 32 bit message. 32 bits does not include one whole hell of a lot. (ie, a single message string includes aircraft id, but not location) Each broadcast string, per aircraft, to include ID and location, etc, will consist of many message strings.
Depending on the frequency of messages (typical is every 5 seconds) the data from the ac will be broadcast. So, long stry short, each aircraft, depending on the requirements, will be broadcasting multiple strings of data, at 5 second intervals.
It is also important to keep in mind that aircraft are not the only ones using this system and frequency.
Being an 800MHz system, (and 1090) there is a limitation to the bandwidth and sub frequencies available. This system cannot multipath, so when a freq/subfreq is used, it is unavailable to others. As a point of reference, many are familiar with push to talk hand held radios, ADSB is the same type of system that push to talk systems use, so when you push to talk, you use that bandwidth until you unpush. That is why the ADSB system for aircraft is limited to a 32 bit string.
That 32 bit string equates to 4000 ADSB messages per second. WOW that seems great!
Then reality creeps in once again.
Each aircraft broadcasting strings, ID, then location, then speed, etc..every 3 seconds, doesnt take long to determine in a crowded airspace, how many messages ADSB system will encounter.
A while back, we did a trial at Munich, well in 1995. When full capability was turned on, there were 40 THOUSAND messages per second. Remember above, the freq/system had capability of 4000/second. The ADSB was effectively shut down, hence the need for 'selective capability' of the system, or in regulatory speak, 'committees' to determine signal content and priority.
This is why mandates have been so far out. When some agencys, like the FAA, in 2005, set a deadline for 2020, it simply means, push off this deadline to after I retire so I dont have to make this work during my career.
Sooo, long story short.
In 2020, when the ADSB mandates and protocals are in full decided and put into operation, it will be the technological equivalent of using Morse Code on your cell phone.
A system is needed to provide location and indentification of aircraft in the airspace. Mostly for ATC, but also for self separation and avoidance.
We have to face it, the airspace, like any other highway, is getting crowded and congested.
Unfortunately, the means and methods of tracking in that airspace, are stressed to the limits, and development around airports has significantly reduced RADAR capability.
Incoming ADSB. Currently, in my opinion, being touted as an intermediate /future step in airspace management, but actually, it is a technologically ancient system. ADSB uses the 800 Mhz system, recently moving ground ops to 1090 Mhz taking some of the load off. (you can see all of the 'commitees' working on the broadcast message)
The ADSB system has the capability, due to bandwidth, to manage 4000 'messages' per second. The message is each signal broadcast, but important, a signal is a single 32 bit message. 32 bits does not include one whole hell of a lot. (ie, a single message string includes aircraft id, but not location) Each broadcast string, per aircraft, to include ID and location, etc, will consist of many message strings.
Depending on the frequency of messages (typical is every 5 seconds) the data from the ac will be broadcast. So, long stry short, each aircraft, depending on the requirements, will be broadcasting multiple strings of data, at 5 second intervals.
It is also important to keep in mind that aircraft are not the only ones using this system and frequency.
Being an 800MHz system, (and 1090) there is a limitation to the bandwidth and sub frequencies available. This system cannot multipath, so when a freq/subfreq is used, it is unavailable to others. As a point of reference, many are familiar with push to talk hand held radios, ADSB is the same type of system that push to talk systems use, so when you push to talk, you use that bandwidth until you unpush. That is why the ADSB system for aircraft is limited to a 32 bit string.
That 32 bit string equates to 4000 ADSB messages per second. WOW that seems great!
Then reality creeps in once again.
Each aircraft broadcasting strings, ID, then location, then speed, etc..every 3 seconds, doesnt take long to determine in a crowded airspace, how many messages ADSB system will encounter.
A while back, we did a trial at Munich, well in 1995. When full capability was turned on, there were 40 THOUSAND messages per second. Remember above, the freq/system had capability of 4000/second. The ADSB was effectively shut down, hence the need for 'selective capability' of the system, or in regulatory speak, 'committees' to determine signal content and priority.
This is why mandates have been so far out. When some agencys, like the FAA, in 2005, set a deadline for 2020, it simply means, push off this deadline to after I retire so I dont have to make this work during my career.
Sooo, long story short.
In 2020, when the ADSB mandates and protocals are in full decided and put into operation, it will be the technological equivalent of using Morse Code on your cell phone.
Mostly for ATC, but also for self separation and avoidance.
Underfire, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it Australia (unlike the US) is not implementing ADSB-IN, therefore we will be denied the ability to see other ADSB returns and therefore unable to self separate. When I shell out the money for a new Garmin GTN unit to achieve the required C146a input, I will not have the option of seeing traffic like our American counterparts.
For the RPT sectors, I can see absolute benefit from ADSB. Especially the non radar RPT destinations like Mildura.
However, for a private GA IFR pilot like me who flies below 10,000 ft about 90% of the time, I cannot see any benefit because I will be still mixing with non ADSB VFR traffic and even non transponder RA(Aus), historic and glider traffic.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
However, for a private GA IFR pilot like me who flies below 10,000 ft about 90% of the time, I cannot see any benefit because I will be still mixing with non ADSB VFR traffic and even non transponder RA(Aus), historic and glider traffic.
I'd like to consider the Avidyne GPS and the King txp. It may to be hard to do that and meet the deadline. All the US manufacturers are working to a 2020 deadline for UAT units (with ES units as a second priority), not our 2016 deadline.
But, while its a good thing, it would be better value (as far as I'm concerned) if we had gone with ADSB-IN.
And, I can't see how my safety will be improved at all. I can see that AsA will save money. I can see that is makes controllers life easier. But outside the primary control steps I can't see that it makes my flight any safer or that traffic separation will be handled any differently because of the mix of non ADS-B VFR traffic.
If we were serious, we'd mandate it on all aircraft and subsidise implementation like the US.
But, while its a good thing, it would be better value (as far as I'm concerned) if we had gone with ADSB-IN.
And, I can't see how my safety will be improved at all. I can see that AsA will save money. I can see that is makes controllers life easier. But outside the primary control steps I can't see that it makes my flight any safer or that traffic separation will be handled any differently because of the mix of non ADS-B VFR traffic.
If we were serious, we'd mandate it on all aircraft and subsidise implementation like the US.
I often wonder if Airservices/CASA have considered all the effects of greater surveillance.
For example, with a greater visibility of air traffic, have they considered the greater workload of Controllers...burdened with a duty of care to intervene in any potential conflictions...whether inside or outside Controlled Airspace?
Will more Controllers be required? If so, where from?
For example, with a greater visibility of air traffic, have they considered the greater workload of Controllers...burdened with a duty of care to intervene in any potential conflictions...whether inside or outside Controlled Airspace?
Will more Controllers be required? If so, where from?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro, (warning: rambling content 
)
The best use for ADSB is for the areas outside RADAR and to provide better update rates than a RADAR system. Especially valuable for trans Oceanic flight tracking.
While ADSB-In has been touted to provide all sorts of wonderful benefits, it will likely never, ever happen. As noted in the Boeing document, they fully support ADSB-out, and say they will look to meet mandates for In. The plans show for ADSB-In to be used on the ground, even equipping all ground vehicles. Nice diagrams and work for the next 30 years, but I am sure that technology will run right past the capability. The ground movement has pretty much stalled because ADSB is line of sight, and when the ac is sitting or on taxi, the runway surface reflection, other aircraft, and structures, blocks the signal.
All of this ADSB has been in the works for many, many years, operating in a silo, and not keeping up with technology. Its broadcast is limited to line of sight, low power, so in AUS, while you may be broadcasting, there would have to be stations to receive, with GA altitudes, a lot of stations!
There are far better, faster ways of achieving the same goals with current and near current technologies. That is why I feel it will languish like MLS.
The significant reason why you will never see any commercial system rely on ADSB data is that the signal is not secure, and there is no way to validate. It is very easy to spoof the ADSB broadcast signal, so you really dont want to turn on the 'In' of your FMS. ADS-C is a contract, and does have some security capabilities.
What kills me is the 1090 band is already used up in many areas of the world, and the capabilities havent even been turned on yet. So, now they are looking at ac below 18,000 to use 978. Lets back up to the first point. The FAA is already aware the system is busted with just the basic information being transmitted. The 'congestion' as they call it, means it starts leaving aircraft out of the system
)The best use for ADSB is for the areas outside RADAR and to provide better update rates than a RADAR system. Especially valuable for trans Oceanic flight tracking.
While ADSB-In has been touted to provide all sorts of wonderful benefits, it will likely never, ever happen. As noted in the Boeing document, they fully support ADSB-out, and say they will look to meet mandates for In. The plans show for ADSB-In to be used on the ground, even equipping all ground vehicles. Nice diagrams and work for the next 30 years, but I am sure that technology will run right past the capability. The ground movement has pretty much stalled because ADSB is line of sight, and when the ac is sitting or on taxi, the runway surface reflection, other aircraft, and structures, blocks the signal.
All of this ADSB has been in the works for many, many years, operating in a silo, and not keeping up with technology. Its broadcast is limited to line of sight, low power, so in AUS, while you may be broadcasting, there would have to be stations to receive, with GA altitudes, a lot of stations!
There are far better, faster ways of achieving the same goals with current and near current technologies. That is why I feel it will languish like MLS.
The significant reason why you will never see any commercial system rely on ADSB data is that the signal is not secure, and there is no way to validate. It is very easy to spoof the ADSB broadcast signal, so you really dont want to turn on the 'In' of your FMS. ADS-C is a contract, and does have some security capabilities.
What kills me is the 1090 band is already used up in many areas of the world, and the capabilities havent even been turned on yet. So, now they are looking at ac below 18,000 to use 978. Lets back up to the first point. The FAA is already aware the system is busted with just the basic information being transmitted. The 'congestion' as they call it, means it starts leaving aircraft out of the system
Good find on that SB, Jaba...been googling for days to see what was actually on the boards....come up with nada except comments on availability this year. Still cannot find anything relating to that SB anywhere.
underfire, FRUIT is a real issue in Europe and east coast US...not likely out here for a very long time, if ever. 1090Mhz is still VHF!
OldAkro, you do not have to wait for a certified Rx unit to gain benefit from advisory data.
EDIT...underfire...have you actually read any data on how ANY ADS-B system works?
underfire, FRUIT is a real issue in Europe and east coast US...not likely out here for a very long time, if ever. 1090Mhz is still VHF!
OldAkro, you do not have to wait for a certified Rx unit to gain benefit from advisory data.
EDIT...underfire...have you actually read any data on how ANY ADS-B system works?
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 20th Jan 2014 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
old radio techs......gotta love em hey creamy
Dick and anyone else interested. Here is an ADS-B world summary from the Cessna folks from last October. It is well worth watching for an overview of ADS-B systems, standards, equipment upgrades and the related stuff.
CESCAST For October, 31, 2013-ADS-B Update - YouTube
Some points to consider;
1. The delay in equipment options due the US move from DO260A to DO260B minimum standards fairly late in the game.
2. That aircraft with Collins 260A compliant gear (outside the US - including Australia) have a simple ‘jumper’ amendment available – Hey Dick, has Ol’ mate LAME read SL525B-34-05 yet?
Dick and anyone else interested. Here is an ADS-B world summary from the Cessna folks from last October. It is well worth watching for an overview of ADS-B systems, standards, equipment upgrades and the related stuff.
CESCAST For October, 31, 2013-ADS-B Update - YouTube
Some points to consider;
1. The delay in equipment options due the US move from DO260A to DO260B minimum standards fairly late in the game.
2. That aircraft with Collins 260A compliant gear (outside the US - including Australia) have a simple ‘jumper’ amendment available – Hey Dick, has Ol’ mate LAME read SL525B-34-05 yet?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here is something about the reliability of ADSB (from a RF hack site):
Unusual landing site
First, what a brilliant concept you have there. Really nice.
Second. Was watching QF 0613, VH-VZU this morning, 2304 at around 0725 landing on RWY 34. The Flight Deck view (also really good, the MS Flight Sim guys will love it) showed it was landing at YSSY but on Google Earth it appeared to land next to Gundaroo Rd about 9nm south of the Hume Hwy.
I hope this is the sort of feedback you are looking for. Hopefully you will get this coding issue sorted and you produce an outstanding aviation app. Are you going to do one for YMML since it is a 24 hour airport, unlike YSSY with its curfew. ;-)
reply
Mon, 23/04/2012 - 11:00 — balint
RE: Unusual landing site
Thanks for testing it out!
This is an interesting phenomenon: I have spent a great deal of time adding sanity checks so that corrupted position reports do not throw out airframe tracks. If an ADS-B frame is valid though, it is processed as-is. There are, in fact, a number of broken transponders, which result in very odd tracks, such as the one you saw. I have verified this with other receivers/services too - so I think chances are they're sending bad data (and AvMap is interpreting it as it ought to).
Some people have kindly offered a feed for YMML, so it will hopefully be on the map soon!
Unusual landing site
First, what a brilliant concept you have there. Really nice.
Second. Was watching QF 0613, VH-VZU this morning, 2304 at around 0725 landing on RWY 34. The Flight Deck view (also really good, the MS Flight Sim guys will love it) showed it was landing at YSSY but on Google Earth it appeared to land next to Gundaroo Rd about 9nm south of the Hume Hwy.
I hope this is the sort of feedback you are looking for. Hopefully you will get this coding issue sorted and you produce an outstanding aviation app. Are you going to do one for YMML since it is a 24 hour airport, unlike YSSY with its curfew. ;-)
reply
Mon, 23/04/2012 - 11:00 — balint
RE: Unusual landing site
Thanks for testing it out!
This is an interesting phenomenon: I have spent a great deal of time adding sanity checks so that corrupted position reports do not throw out airframe tracks. If an ADS-B frame is valid though, it is processed as-is. There are, in fact, a number of broken transponders, which result in very odd tracks, such as the one you saw. I have verified this with other receivers/services too - so I think chances are they're sending bad data (and AvMap is interpreting it as it ought to).
Some people have kindly offered a feed for YMML, so it will hopefully be on the map soon!
Thread Starter
I still find fascinating the complete lack of ethics from CASA and Airservices on this issue. As my letter of Friday 10 January 2014 to John McCormick stated (see HERE), “
is totally illegal.
The industry at the time believed the advice was correct so did not put up a strong case for exemption requests in the non-radar airspace believing the statement of CASA to be supported by law. It clearly was not.
My suggestion is you read the letter again. It’s interesting how there have been no comments on this letter from CASA.
It’s interesting – I’ve copied my letter to John McCormick to Minister Warren Truss but he has not yet made an announcement that he will force CASA to comply with the law – the sensible thing in this case would be to delay the mandate for, say, twelve months whilst a proper consultation can take place.
The Cessna video which is linked on a previous post is interesting if you can stay there for the whole forty minutes. First of all it states that in Australia only about 8% of the business aviation aircraft have been able to become compliant. It then mentions, “the goal posts have been moved” then such words as, “the technical solution from our suppliers does not exist. In Australia the timing is very challenging” - that is, indeed, an understatement with business aviation aircraft being forced to fly at low levels using lots more fuel, required to fly lower in bad weather and also having to land unnecessarily enroute.
If you watch the video they mention Canada – how different to Australia! The ADS-B mandatory level is flight level 350 to flight level 400 but, most importantly, you can apply to fly in those levels without ADS-B if there is not another aircraft that is going to be affected.
I am amazed that Minister Warren Truss hasn’t said to CASA words to the effect, “Comply with the law. If you have informed the industry that no exemption requests will be accepted when this is against the law, you will have to change that advice and delay the introduction”. Why hasn’t the Minister said this? In my view he has always seemed to be an honest person. Is it that he is not game to force them to comply with the law?
It’s interesting that John McCormick clearly stated that a reasonable dispensation would be allowed, however the people below him have simply ignored his advice. The only advantage in bringing in this mandate so early is a potential cost saving for Airservices by being able to reduce staffing levels. But surely they can delay this for twelve months whilst they comply with the law?
More importantly, if they are going to make a huge saving from this premature introduction of mandatory ADS-B above flight level 290 in the non-radar airspace, why can’t they compensate the small number of aircraft that are having to pay extra? If this is a small part of the total savings it would be a sensible and ethical thing to do.
See HERE for a recent letter I sent to the Minister asking him for a meeting within three days. As of today’s date, eight days after the letter was sent, no response has been received.
I will repeat – I find it fascinating that CASA requires the industry to comply with the law but doesn’t seem to have to do so itself.
Once again, I will say I am not blaming the Air Traffic Controllers for this situation, however if they do force an aircraft into bad weather and an accident results, I know what the media will say.
Exemption requests for other areas of airspace will not be approved
The industry at the time believed the advice was correct so did not put up a strong case for exemption requests in the non-radar airspace believing the statement of CASA to be supported by law. It clearly was not.
My suggestion is you read the letter again. It’s interesting how there have been no comments on this letter from CASA.
It’s interesting – I’ve copied my letter to John McCormick to Minister Warren Truss but he has not yet made an announcement that he will force CASA to comply with the law – the sensible thing in this case would be to delay the mandate for, say, twelve months whilst a proper consultation can take place.
The Cessna video which is linked on a previous post is interesting if you can stay there for the whole forty minutes. First of all it states that in Australia only about 8% of the business aviation aircraft have been able to become compliant. It then mentions, “the goal posts have been moved” then such words as, “the technical solution from our suppliers does not exist. In Australia the timing is very challenging” - that is, indeed, an understatement with business aviation aircraft being forced to fly at low levels using lots more fuel, required to fly lower in bad weather and also having to land unnecessarily enroute.
If you watch the video they mention Canada – how different to Australia! The ADS-B mandatory level is flight level 350 to flight level 400 but, most importantly, you can apply to fly in those levels without ADS-B if there is not another aircraft that is going to be affected.
I am amazed that Minister Warren Truss hasn’t said to CASA words to the effect, “Comply with the law. If you have informed the industry that no exemption requests will be accepted when this is against the law, you will have to change that advice and delay the introduction”. Why hasn’t the Minister said this? In my view he has always seemed to be an honest person. Is it that he is not game to force them to comply with the law?
It’s interesting that John McCormick clearly stated that a reasonable dispensation would be allowed, however the people below him have simply ignored his advice. The only advantage in bringing in this mandate so early is a potential cost saving for Airservices by being able to reduce staffing levels. But surely they can delay this for twelve months whilst they comply with the law?
More importantly, if they are going to make a huge saving from this premature introduction of mandatory ADS-B above flight level 290 in the non-radar airspace, why can’t they compensate the small number of aircraft that are having to pay extra? If this is a small part of the total savings it would be a sensible and ethical thing to do.
See HERE for a recent letter I sent to the Minister asking him for a meeting within three days. As of today’s date, eight days after the letter was sent, no response has been received.
I will repeat – I find it fascinating that CASA requires the industry to comply with the law but doesn’t seem to have to do so itself.
Once again, I will say I am not blaming the Air Traffic Controllers for this situation, however if they do force an aircraft into bad weather and an accident results, I know what the media will say.
I will repeat – I find it fascinating that someone with your smarts and experience still hasn’t worked out that it hasn’t got anything to do with what’s right or wrong. If you want something done about ADSB (or you want ATCers to wear pink tutus), identify and publicly support a popular candidate for Mr Truss’s House of Reps seat.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless he 'bugs out' and leaves Barnaby in charge, I doubt the plebs want to wait that long. Probably doing a job on him would have a better and quicker result. His sterling performance as 'acting PM' is a measure of his worth in any job. I'm hoping he proves me wrong and is only setting CASA up for a fall with his 'review' which will give Brandis something to go on with his inquisition into the legal system. Why is Shorten telling fibs about Abbott stealing from pensioners when he could be attacking this bloke?
Oh, I get it. Something will probably come back to bite him on the arse. Maybe CASA should get into the insurance business.
Oh, I get it. Something will probably come back to bite him on the arse. Maybe CASA should get into the insurance business.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick, I take it then that this is all about
1. You think the implementation is illegal, and maybe it is.
2. ASA and airlines gaining a benefit but it costs you to equip.
3. making outrageous hypothetical "sky is falling" claims
4. ......and nothing to do with you having the ability at modest cost (comparatively) to squitting out ADSB.
Your claims at point 1 might be true, but based on the rest how do you expect the rest of industry to support your cause. Maybe you should have supported strongly the subsidy concept several years ago? If you had it would have taken care of points 2,3 & 4 and point 1 would have been moot by now.
So Dick, having sat through the video and no doubt you have obtained a copy of the SL, what did Cessna say or quote you to do the jumper swap and fill in the log books? Even if it was a lot of paper work it surely can't be much more than a 4-5 hour job?
1. You think the implementation is illegal, and maybe it is.
2. ASA and airlines gaining a benefit but it costs you to equip.
3. making outrageous hypothetical "sky is falling" claims
4. ......and nothing to do with you having the ability at modest cost (comparatively) to squitting out ADSB.
Your claims at point 1 might be true, but based on the rest how do you expect the rest of industry to support your cause. Maybe you should have supported strongly the subsidy concept several years ago? If you had it would have taken care of points 2,3 & 4 and point 1 would have been moot by now.
So Dick, having sat through the video and no doubt you have obtained a copy of the SL, what did Cessna say or quote you to do the jumper swap and fill in the log books? Even if it was a lot of paper work it surely can't be much more than a 4-5 hour job?
Frank, we wouldn't have to wait for the actual loss of a seat. Last time around there mere prospect of Mr Smith moving and supporting a powerful chess piece to a very inconvenient place on the electoral chess board acheived the result he wanted.
I see the letters to Messer's McCormick and Truss both infer Flightradar24 displays all aircraft.
Any ATC confirm what percentage of aircraft outside the "J" curve it displays vs reality? Or have a TAAATS screen grab of a time period the same as Flightradar24 for a comparison?
Closest I can come up with is this, which according to a Google search comes from an Airservices presentation to the Engineers Australia Southern Highlands and Tablelands Regional Group conference. While 2 years old it does show far more traffic outside the "J" curve than Flightradar24 does now.
I also stumbled across this. Quite cute I thought.
http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/wp-...050151B3-2.pdf
Any ATC confirm what percentage of aircraft outside the "J" curve it displays vs reality? Or have a TAAATS screen grab of a time period the same as Flightradar24 for a comparison?
Closest I can come up with is this, which according to a Google search comes from an Airservices presentation to the Engineers Australia Southern Highlands and Tablelands Regional Group conference. While 2 years old it does show far more traffic outside the "J" curve than Flightradar24 does now.
I also stumbled across this. Quite cute I thought.
http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/wp-...050151B3-2.pdf